I would say that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to be irresponsible (if you aren't alive all of your other rights are meaningless). You can always chose adoption. I know it might be inconvenient, but I don't think that's a good reason kill someone.
"I'm pretty sure the contractors [blackwaterusa.com] hired by your conservatives are more expensive than the proposed government employees you're talking about."
I'd doubt it, but even so it's the social spending and government interference in the economy I object to. It the government hires some contractors to fight a war, that's different from the government hiring a bunch of doctors. Fighting wars is an existing function of government, but providing health care would a new one.
Don't get me wrong, we spend too much on defense, and I wish they would stop waging un-necessary wars. But we spend much more on social programs that accomplish even less. I can not vote for a candidate would increase social spending still further. And I will always vote for the candidate who advotacets the smallest public sector (which rules Barak "public sector" Obama).
"and the huge number of deaths that inevitably arise from making abortion illegal"
This argument will never hold water with us pro-lifers, because we consider every abortion to be a murder. A small number of accidental deaths is preferable to a large number of deliberate murders.
That's like saying my identical twin brother and I have unique DNA signatures. Just because there are a few mutations doesn't mean it's really different. For the record, I don't believe that it's okay to kill me just because my brother would go on living.
"As for beating heart and brain activity, at 6 weeks that is all reflex (just like stimulating a frog's leg with electricity to make it jump)."
Obviously the brain activity in a fetus is not a reflex, since it occurs in the brain (unless you mean to imply that all human brain activity is simply a reflex, which would also invalidate your argument because we know it's illegal to kill humans).
The argument that fetuses are not human, and can be killed because they are not fully developed could just as easily be applied to a newborn baby, or a toddler, or a child, or a teenager. Yet we extend the right to life to all of them.
You're in for some tough times when you start trying to litigate or legislate action on the part of another person. Granted governments try to do it all the time (taxes, renters rights, requiring emergency rooms to treat all incoming patients). Ultimately, if you to try to do this anywhere you might save a life, you would destroy the economy entirely by pre-determining all economic activity.
Socialized health care is a perfect example. Shortages in available health care are a reality that can not be removed through legislation. But people want sue simply because health care is un-available. How can you righteously try to hold someone accountable for something that is practically guaranteed to happen no matter what they do? It makes no sense.
Of course, you can't outlaw spontaneous abortion, because none of the parties involved have any choice in the matter. It would be as nonsensical as outlawing lightning because people are struck by it.
Any form of abortion you chose, on the other hand, can be outlawed. The pro-life viewpoint is not that an embryo should be protected at all costs, but rather that we should never chose to destroy one. Most abortions happen to pregnant women who have no reason to believe that they won't be able to carry the baby to term. They simply have the abortion because it would be inconvenient to have the baby. To us pro-lifers, that is a shockingly casual view on human life. Especially so since, for the most part, you can chose whether or not the become pregnant.
As a conservative voter, it doesn't really matter to me that the rest of the world views both parties as conservative. It is a question of movement, do I want a government that will move toward more social spending and a larger public sector? No. I want a government what will move away from social spending and toward free markets and deregulation.
All your statement proves is that the rest of the world has even farther to go before they would be a place I'd ideally like to live.
There is the rotary engine used in the Mazda RX-8, and previously in the RX-7. But it's gas mileage is not as good as a piston engine (good power to weight ratio, poor gas mileage).
Things are looking up in Iraq. I said 4 years ago that we should be working WITH al-Sadr instead of against him. You can't win this kind of war without the support of the people. Maybe I should be president (then again, I never would've invaded Iraq in the first place. ..)
At least, it is when you couldn't care less about it. And it's not like they really teach you much in elementary school or high school.
We need to get rid of the college-educated class system. We need schools and universities who will sell an education to anyone, at a decent price without pointless filler classes to take up time. When colleges and schools set admissions caps and standards, and make no effort to accommodate additional students in the face of obvious, dire need they are establishing and reinforcing a class system that hurts us all.
They don't copy the data on every single laptop either. Just because it is subject to search doesn't mean it will be searched. The poster had implied that internet based transmissions would be more secure than physically carrying a device over the border, and this is simply not true.
"What stops me setting up my own radio link across a border?"
Nothing, but it wouldn't be illegal for them to listen in on that either.
All data moving into and out of the US via the internet/other communications infrastructure is subject to searches by the US government. One program is Echelon, and the people who've tired to report on it and call attention to it are generally considered nut-jobs and conspiracy theorists (I'm not sure why, stories on it are always confirmed by credible sources, and the program was never strictly denied by the feds). Now there is "warrantless" wire-tapping, though as far as I can tell the government is not required by law to have a warrant to intercept this information but that is a question of legal interpretation. Perhaps the distinction is that the NSA is now doing it, where ECHELON is a CIA thing. Or maybe it's just that ECHELON has remains secret, while someone spilled the beans on the NSA program.
So no, searching these laptops is not pointless. And also, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
That's not exactly true. They will automatically remove the heat from the reactor in the event of a power failure for a period of time (three days) but after that severe damage can still occur as heat builds up in the reactor. And of course, the passive cooling system is still subject to parts failure.
This kind of fail-safe design is possible due to the fact that reactor output falls as temperature increases. If the primary cooling system fails, the reactor will heat up and the non-powered heat removal system will be able to remove the reduced power generated by the reactor.
There is a video on the GE website that explains how the passive safety system works:
I wasn't really referring to the oath, but the article. The author stated that an oath would be ineffectual, and suggested restructuring corporate research funding to mimic academic research. To me, that's a move toward a planned economy, and it won't do anything at all to prevent corruption.
Well aren't you fancy! I guess I meant to say initialism then. I hope my dastardly misuse of the English language has not offended any of you grammar nazis.
There are a number of applications where these materials would be usefull (bearings, armor plating, scratch resistant coatings, springs - anyhwere a metal will be subject fatigue, or where a high yield strength is required). Obviously, they won't ever replace conventional metals in all respects.
A comparison to glass is not apt, because the yield strength of glass is lower than that of metals. It would be more comperable to ceramics (which are already used in many of the applications I've listed above).
In my opinion, all collected data should be reported one way or another. If you have a reason to believe that errors exist in your data, that calls the entire study into question, and your results should reflect that. If you intend to do a correlation and you want to exclude data points, you should have a specific reason reason to believe that the data points are invalid. Not being characteristic is not really a good reason. You should at least have a hypothesis about the cause of outliers, so that future experimentation can be designed to avoid them.
Projecting sociopathic intentions onto others is a sure sign that you have them yourself.
No one in their right mind would withhold a cure for cancer. Even if they were entirely self interested, the notoriety and financial rewards would be immense.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! But why stop there? We should ban all risk of any kind. Make abortions mandatory, it's the only way to save us from ourselves!
I would say that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to be irresponsible (if you aren't alive all of your other rights are meaningless). You can always chose adoption. I know it might be inconvenient, but I don't think that's a good reason kill someone.
"I'm pretty sure the contractors [blackwaterusa.com] hired by your conservatives are more expensive than the proposed government employees you're talking about."
I'd doubt it, but even so it's the social spending and government interference in the economy I object to. It the government hires some contractors to fight a war, that's different from the government hiring a bunch of doctors. Fighting wars is an existing function of government, but providing health care would a new one.
Don't get me wrong, we spend too much on defense, and I wish they would stop waging un-necessary wars. But we spend much more on social programs that accomplish even less. I can not vote for a candidate would increase social spending still further. And I will always vote for the candidate who advotacets the smallest public sector (which rules Barak "public sector" Obama).
"and the huge number of deaths that inevitably arise from making abortion illegal"
This argument will never hold water with us pro-lifers, because we consider every abortion to be a murder. A small number of accidental deaths is preferable to a large number of deliberate murders.
I would also like to point out that you can face criminal charges if you fail to provide food for your older children, up to the age of 18.
"Tumors do have unique DNA signatures."
That's like saying my identical twin brother and I have unique DNA signatures. Just because there are a few mutations doesn't mean it's really different. For the record, I don't believe that it's okay to kill me just because my brother would go on living.
"As for beating heart and brain activity, at 6 weeks that is all reflex (just like stimulating a frog's leg with electricity to make it jump)."
Obviously the brain activity in a fetus is not a reflex, since it occurs in the brain (unless you mean to imply that all human brain activity is simply a reflex, which would also invalidate your argument because we know it's illegal to kill humans).
The argument that fetuses are not human, and can be killed because they are not fully developed could just as easily be applied to a newborn baby, or a toddler, or a child, or a teenager. Yet we extend the right to life to all of them.
You're in for some tough times when you start trying to litigate or legislate action on the part of another person. Granted governments try to do it all the time (taxes, renters rights, requiring emergency rooms to treat all incoming patients). Ultimately, if you to try to do this anywhere you might save a life, you would destroy the economy entirely by pre-determining all economic activity.
Socialized health care is a perfect example. Shortages in available health care are a reality that can not be removed through legislation. But people want sue simply because health care is un-available. How can you righteously try to hold someone accountable for something that is practically guaranteed to happen no matter what they do? It makes no sense.
Some people have more cells than others. I don't think it's fair to try to define how human someone is by the number of cells they have.
Of course, you can't outlaw spontaneous abortion, because none of the parties involved have any choice in the matter. It would be as nonsensical as outlawing lightning because people are struck by it.
Any form of abortion you chose, on the other hand, can be outlawed. The pro-life viewpoint is not that an embryo should be protected at all costs, but rather that we should never chose to destroy one. Most abortions happen to pregnant women who have no reason to believe that they won't be able to carry the baby to term. They simply have the abortion because it would be inconvenient to have the baby. To us pro-lifers, that is a shockingly casual view on human life. Especially so since, for the most part, you can chose whether or not the become pregnant.
As a conservative voter, it doesn't really matter to me that the rest of the world views both parties as conservative. It is a question of movement, do I want a government that will move toward more social spending and a larger public sector? No. I want a government what will move away from social spending and toward free markets and deregulation.
All your statement proves is that the rest of the world has even farther to go before they would be a place I'd ideally like to live.
There is the rotary engine used in the Mazda RX-8, and previously in the RX-7. But it's gas mileage is not as good as a piston engine (good power to weight ratio, poor gas mileage).
Things are looking up in Iraq. I said 4 years ago that we should be working WITH al-Sadr instead of against him. You can't win this kind of war without the support of the people. Maybe I should be president (then again, I never would've invaded Iraq in the first place. . .)
At least, it is when you couldn't care less about it. And it's not like they really teach you much in elementary school or high school. We need to get rid of the college-educated class system. We need schools and universities who will sell an education to anyone, at a decent price without pointless filler classes to take up time. When colleges and schools set admissions caps and standards, and make no effort to accommodate additional students in the face of obvious, dire need they are establishing and reinforcing a class system that hurts us all.
WTF is not an aconym, since it can't be pronounced. I was taken to task on that one the other day.
You seem to know something about it. How come ECHELON never ran afoul of FISA?
They don't copy the data on every single laptop either. Just because it is subject to search doesn't mean it will be searched. The poster had implied that internet based transmissions would be more secure than physically carrying a device over the border, and this is simply not true.
"What stops me setting up my own radio link across a border?"
Nothing, but it wouldn't be illegal for them to listen in on that either.
This has always been a power of the Federal government. It is nothing new. Are there other countries that don't do this?
All data moving into and out of the US via the internet/other communications infrastructure is subject to searches by the US government. One program is Echelon, and the people who've tired to report on it and call attention to it are generally considered nut-jobs and conspiracy theorists (I'm not sure why, stories on it are always confirmed by credible sources, and the program was never strictly denied by the feds). Now there is "warrantless" wire-tapping, though as far as I can tell the government is not required by law to have a warrant to intercept this information but that is a question of legal interpretation. Perhaps the distinction is that the NSA is now doing it, where ECHELON is a CIA thing. Or maybe it's just that ECHELON has remains secret, while someone spilled the beans on the NSA program.
So no, searching these laptops is not pointless. And also, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
That's not exactly true. They will automatically remove the heat from the reactor in the event of a power failure for a period of time (three days) but after that severe damage can still occur as heat builds up in the reactor. And of course, the passive cooling system is still subject to parts failure.
This kind of fail-safe design is possible due to the fact that reactor output falls as temperature increases. If the primary cooling system fails, the reactor will heat up and the non-powered heat removal system will be able to remove the reduced power generated by the reactor.
There is a video on the GE website that explains how the passive safety system works:
ESBWR Passive Safety Systems Animation
I wasn't really referring to the oath, but the article. The author stated that an oath would be ineffectual, and suggested restructuring corporate research funding to mimic academic research. To me, that's a move toward a planned economy, and it won't do anything at all to prevent corruption.
Well aren't you fancy! I guess I meant to say initialism then. I hope my dastardly misuse of the English language has not offended any of you grammar nazis.
There are a number of applications where these materials would be usefull (bearings, armor plating, scratch resistant coatings, springs - anyhwere a metal will be subject fatigue, or where a high yield strength is required). Obviously, they won't ever replace conventional metals in all respects.
A comparison to glass is not apt, because the yield strength of glass is lower than that of metals. It would be more comperable to ceramics (which are already used in many of the applications I've listed above).
In my opinion, all collected data should be reported one way or another. If you have a reason to believe that errors exist in your data, that calls the entire study into question, and your results should reflect that. If you intend to do a correlation and you want to exclude data points, you should have a specific reason reason to believe that the data points are invalid. Not being characteristic is not really a good reason. You should at least have a hypothesis about the cause of outliers, so that future experimentation can be designed to avoid them.
Perhaps I should be more diligent in my post review process as well :(
Projecting sociopathic intentions onto others is a sure sign that you have them yourself.
No one in their right mind would withhold a cure for cancer. Even if they were entirely self interested, the notoriety and financial rewards would be immense.